BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12

144C(5) vide order dated 23.12.15. In various grounds of appeal, the assessee has raised following issues: i) Transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.46,94,26,016/- in respect of ‘Guarantee Commission’ and ‘Fee for Letter of Undertaking’ (Ground No.1.1 to 1.4). ii) Disallowance of sum of Rs.110,33,96,481/- made under section 14A read with rule 8D (Ground No.2.1

ATOMSTROYEXPORT ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)CIRCLE -1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

144C(13) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act') for the AY 2020-21. The assessee raised the following grounds: “Taxability of payment received under Offshore Supply Contracts 1) The learned DCIT/DRP erred in holding that the amount of Rs. 3267,27,22,775 received by the appellant company from the Offshore Supply Contracts was taxable

LUPIN LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

1,18,20,185  Disallowance of sales promotion expenses amounting to Rs. 82,30,32,740  Weighted Deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act on Clinical & Analytical Charges of Rs. 49,94,52,208;  Weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Ac other R&D expenditure of Rs. 8,17,46,000 (through rectification under section

ASSTT. CIT -CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. LUPIN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

1,18,20,185  Disallowance of sales promotion expenses amounting to Rs. 82,30,32,740  Weighted Deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act on Clinical & Analytical Charges of Rs. 49,94,52,208;  Weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Ac other R&D expenditure of Rs. 8,17,46,000 (through rectification under section

DCIT, CIR-14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. EKTA EVEGLADE HOMES PVT LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground raised by the revenue is allowed

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

144C(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2016-17, all the assessment orders were passed on 23/01/2019. 2. Considering the appeal record we find that the Ld.CIT(A) passed a combined order related to A.Ys 2012-13 to 2016-17. The appeals filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assesseeonly related to A.Ys

IMPERIAL MARK TRADE (I) P.LTD,THANE vs. DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

purchase and sale of commodities. The AO vide draft assessment order dated 29/03/2016 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) of the Act disallowed loss on high seas sales of Rs. 8,82,90,741 on the basis that the same is bogus

LINTAS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed with the same directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Acit Cir 3(2)(1) Lintas India Private Limited It Office, R.No. 608, 6 Th 15Th Floor, Express Towers, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Lintas India Private Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit/Income- Limited 15Th Floor, Express Tax Officer, National Faceless Vs. Towers, Nariman Point, Appeal Centre, Delhi Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Assessee By : Shri Ajit Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2022

Section 144C (5) of the Act on 11thSeptember 2018. The ground no.1 with respect to the adjustment on account of payment of intra group services, the learned Dispute Resolution Panel followed its own direction in assessee‟s case for A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14 and upheld the adjustment proposed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer. With respect

LINTAS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI , DELHI

The appeal is allowed with the same directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Acit Cir 3(2)(1) Lintas India Private Limited It Office, R.No. 608, 6 Th 15Th Floor, Express Towers, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Lintas India Private Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit/Income- Limited 15Th Floor, Express Tax Officer, National Faceless Vs. Towers, Nariman Point, Appeal Centre, Delhi Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Assessee By : Shri Ajit Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2022

Section 144C (5) of the Act on 11thSeptember 2018. The ground no.1 with respect to the adjustment on account of payment of intra group services, the learned Dispute Resolution Panel followed its own direction in assessee‟s case for A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14 and upheld the adjustment proposed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer. With respect

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

144C (3) of the Act disallowed the claim of depreciation to the extent of Rs. 3,28,689. In appeal, learned CIT(A) vide impugned order confirmed the addition made by the AO following the earlier year’s decision. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. Reliance Industries Ltd. ITA No.579/Mum./2021 ITA No.1438/Mum./2021 14. We find

ACIT -3(4) , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

144C (3) of the Act disallowed the claim of depreciation to the extent of Rs. 3,28,689. In appeal, learned CIT(A) vide impugned order confirmed the addition made by the AO following the earlier year’s decision. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. Reliance Industries Ltd. ITA No.579/Mum./2021 ITA No.1438/Mum./2021 14. We find

ACIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Reliance Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit Circle 3(4), 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv 222 Room No. 559, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit-3(4), Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 481(2), 4Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv Aayakar Bhavan, N.M. Road, Vs. Nariman Point, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

144C of the Act was completed on 25.03.2019, wherein the total income was assessed at Rs.16797,17,09,934/- under normal provisions of the Act and book profit at Rs.37412,87,67,520/- u/s 115JB of the Act. Along with the assessment order, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of various additions

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

bogus purchases were not supported by any documentary evidences and therefore they were Page No. 3 ITA NO. 2485 & 2486/MUM/2017 C.O. NO. 265 & 355/MUM/2018 M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. mere book entries against which deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be allowed, as the purchases itself were not genuine and hence deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be allowed on the same

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

bogus purchases were not supported by any documentary evidences and therefore they were Page No. 3 ITA NO. 2485 & 2486/MUM/2017 C.O. NO. 265 & 355/MUM/2018 M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. mere book entries against which deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be allowed, as the purchases itself were not genuine and hence deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be allowed on the same

TAURIAN IRON & STEEL CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in terms indicated hereinabove

144C(4)(b) of the 'Act'. 18. Thus now in the case of the assessee company, the A.0 who remained under a statutory obligation to frame the assessment, not later then 31.01.2012, is found to have framed the same as on 19.01.2012, therefore the same is within the period of limitation. Thus the claim of the assessee company that

OMNI ACTIVE HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT./DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO,NATIONAL E-ASSESSMETNT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

144C(13) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), for the aforesaid assessment year on the following among other grounds. 1:0 Transfer Pricing Adjustment of INR 20.00.44.704/ - to the international transaction relating to export of goods 1 : 1 The learned Assessing Officer ("AO")/ Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO")/ Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") has erred in making an upward adjustment

ULTRA TECH CEMENT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CC 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

144C(3) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act assessing the total income at ₹.30,84,36,71,563. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the disallowances and claims rejected by the Assessing Officer in the Page No. 5 ITA NO. 1789 & 1466/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2013-14) ITA NO. 222 & 220/MUM/2022